variant_revise

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose the defining side effect: the hash recomputes and any approval bound to the old hash is invalidated, returning the variant to review. That is exactly the kind of mutation consequence an agent needs before calling. It omits permission requirements and whether the changes object is a partial merge or a full replace.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the affected fields front-loaded and the consequence flagged. The "HASH LAW" label makes the critical constraint scannable rather than burying it mid-sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the destructive side effect well but leaves gaps: no return value behavior, no error cases, and no clarification of the opaque nested changes object. Adequate to call correctly in the happy path, incomplete around the edges.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the "changes" parameter is an untyped nested object with no declared properties, so the description's enumeration of copy/hashtags/schedule/destination/link/disclosures/order/media is the only documentation of that payload. Useful, but it gives no types, formats, or guidance on whether omitted keys are preserved, and variant_id is never explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs a specific verb ("Revise") with the exact resource (a variant) and enumerates the mutable surface: copy, hashtags, schedule, destination, link, disclosures, order, media. That is far more concrete than a restatement of the name. It stops short of naming a sibling it must not be confused with, even though approve_variant and approval_pack sit in the same family.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied by "Revise a variant" but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over approve_variant or approval_pack, nor any precondition such as requiring an unapproved variant. The hash rule hints that revising after approval has consequences, but the agent must infer the decision boundary itself.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.